From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 718DD446DE for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:33:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709843588; cv=none; b=gm/6YfJhUZRtLt4L41WhVl0w2YojBE4HorU3qzrILiKrHCbGqv/u8IzqIKpI0G5CKSnGZg1PpiLyEd0hb3Eccs+gSea7ZVHG+NNi8Myey2IzrjyL27wYllZQK16oK+YByhetRe7WudrQORiROM9CfBemL0H778GIAyYeeTepts0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709843588; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uueDQzWZD4rwKdFRSHqYWrQCD+9iyhyQIZu3BQpmMXc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=g2iBRO4FiiRziwy0WzHWEvN0U2Foj6wBgjVS3i1hfcLKsaPmE3kaAAzKcDkP0Hrg17UxLiqghWRN1DHTRxApO+myZbQT38VEhPievzyuGHqktNPCiatr3oFTaxD38NEs2H9MJKNAJrJUSFvsY0EVFnZZovZYFn0dXrlMm8vQ2jQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=yDIjEd79; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="yDIjEd79" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1746231AA7; Thu, 7 Mar 2024 15:33:07 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=uueDQzWZD4rwKdFRSHqYWrQCD+9iyhyQIZu3BQ pmMXc=; b=yDIjEd79+hHLpK0Z3dajZM+oWn6mbOjKZrEvl7q/IQo2q+AuCBTc0H GcOCEv/ql4d/vs6itQRPycRRUlS8gdAogufCVhXp9REW5G4lybKpNQXTuPOxulUm Y13n4ac2hm6eMDbx3XDIsBcbK2sJJ3kl6hAWcMThvhkGQAuhhszVQ= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED8331AA6; Thu, 7 Mar 2024 15:33:07 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.185.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D19CC31AA3; Thu, 7 Mar 2024 15:33:01 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH] git: extend --no-lazy-fetch to work across subprocesses In-Reply-To: <20240307095638.GC2650063@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 7 Mar 2024 04:56:38 -0500") References: <20240215053056.GD2821179@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20240217054048.GD539459@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20240227074903.GD3263678@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20240307095638.GC2650063@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2024 12:33:00 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E4B20778-DCC1-11EE-8600-A19503B9AAD1-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Jeff King writes: >> So I do not have a strong opinion either way, if it is more >> convenient to propagate the request out to other repositories when >> we run processes in two or more repositories (e.g. "git clone >> --local"), or if it is more convenient to make sure that the request >> is limited to the target repository. Here is a version without the >> local_repo_env[] change. > > Yeah, GIT_CEILING_DIRECTORIES is maybe a bad example. But I do think > LITERAL_PATHSPECS is a better one, and the submodule-fetch example I > gave would be genuinely surprising if it behaved differently than the > superproject, I'd think. > > I do agree this is probably going to mostly be a debugging aid, so it > might not matter much. But once in the wild these things tend to take on > a life of their own. ;) > >> ----- >8 --------- >8 --------- >8 --------- >8 --------- >8 ----- >> Subject: [PATCH v3 3/3] git: extend --no-lazy-fetch to work across subprocesses > > So anyway, this version seems good to me. Thanks.